HB1941 creates a new federal civil remedy and a criminal offense to address the disclosure of intimate digital depictions created or altered through digital manipulation. The Civil Action provisions sit alongside a new criminal statute that penalizes disclosing intimate digital depictions with intent to harass or with knowledge or reckless disregard of the absence of consent.
The bill also defines key terms and sets consent standards, exemptions, and procedural tools to enforce the prohibitions. It operates by augmenting the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 and adding a narrowly tailored framework for remedies and enforcement across interstate commerce.
At a Glance
What It Does
It adds Sec. 1309A to the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022, defining intimate digital depictions and creating a civil action for non-consensual disclosure, plus a new federal criminal offense (18 U.S.C. 2252D) with specified penalties.
Who It Affects
Individuals whose intimate digital depictions are disclosed without consent, defendants who disclose such depictions, and federal courts and law enforcement tasked with enforcement across interstate or foreign commerce.
Why It Matters
It creates a federal pathway for victims to seek monetary and equitable relief and establishes criminal penalties, signaling a baseline expectation for privacy and accountability in the digital manipulation era.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill introduces a federal civil cause of action for people whose intimate digital depictions are disclosed without their consent, especially when the disclosure crosses state lines or involves interstate commerce. It defines what counts as an intimate digital depiction and who can be considered the depicted individual, and it specifies what counts as consent.
Consent must be in a plain-language, signed written agreement that describes the depiction and any audiovisual work it will be part of. The bill also establishes a set of remedies that can be awarded in civil court, including actual damages, liquidated damages up to $150,000, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, along with equitable relief such as injunctions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a new civil action for non-consensual disclosures of intimate digital depictions.
Consent to create a depiction does not imply consent to disclose or publish.
Liquidated damages are capped at $150,000, with other damages and fees available.
A new criminal offense (18 U.S.C. 2252D) covers disclosing intimate depictions with intent to harass or with knowledge/disregard for lack of consent.
The act provides exemptions and allows in-camera proceedings and anonymity in certain relief orders.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions
This section lays the groundwork by defining consent, depicted individual, digital depiction, disclose, intimate digital depiction, and sexually explicit conduct. The definitions anchor the civil and criminal provisions that follow and set the scope for what the bill protects.
Right of Action
Establishes a federal civil action for individuals who are the subject of an intimate digital depiction disclosed without consent, providing relief as allowed under subsection (d). It also allows guardians or representatives to sue on behalf of certain individuals who cannot sue themselves.
Consent
Details how consent is to be valid for purposes of an action: a plain-language written agreement signed knowingly and voluntarily, with a description of the depiction and its audiovisual context. It clarifies that consent to create does not equal consent to disclose.
Relief
Outlines monetary and equitable relief. Civil plaintiffs may recover actual damages, liquidated damages up to $150,000, and attorneys’ fees, and courts may issue injunctions or other equitable remedies. Anonymity can be preserved through pseudonymous relief where appropriate.
Exceptions
Specifies carve-outs for disclosures made in good faith to law enforcement, within legal proceedings, or for matters of legitimate public concern, and clarifies limited public-interest exceptions to protect free speech and public discourse.
In Camera
Allows courts to conduct certain proceedings in private to protect the privacy and safety of the depicted individuals when appropriate.
Disclaimers
States that a disclaimer that a depiction was unauthorized or that the depicted individual did not participate is not a defense to an action.
Limitations
Affirms that providers of interactive computer services are not liable for restricting access in good faith or for enabling others to implement access controls, preserving limited intermediary liability in line with the bill’s protections.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Privacy across all five countries.
Explore Privacy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Depicted individuals who suffer non-consensual disclosures gain a federally enforceable remedy and potential damages.
- Legal guardians or estate representatives can protect the rights of incapacitated, underage, or otherwise unable individuals.
- Victim-support organizations and privacy advocates gain a legal framework to assist clients and promote online safety.
- Courts and enforcement agencies gain clear statutory authority to address interstate digital exploitation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Disclosers who violate the statute face civil damages, potential criminal penalties, and litigation costs.
- Intermediary platforms may incur costs and compliance considerations to align with good-faith restrictions and access controls.
- Public institutions and law enforcement may see increased demand and resource needs to process civil suits and criminal investigations.
- Small or international platforms hosting content across borders may face compliance considerations in line with the interstate scope of the statute.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between strong privacy protections for individuals depicted in intimate digital content and the risk of overbreadth or misapplication that could chill legitimate discourse, cross-border online activity, or rapid-response reporting while preserving meaningful remedies for victims.
The bill purposefully constrains a broad and technologically evolving practice by tying civil and criminal remedies to clearly defined terms and consent standards. While this strengthens victims’ recourse, it also raises questions about scope, especially around consent, public-interest disclosures, and what constitutes a legitimate public concern.
The interplay between written consent requirements and the reality of digital contracts, the potential chilling effects on reporting or legitimate journalism, and the administrative burden on platforms and law enforcement are key tensions. In addition, the liquidated damages cap and the availability of punitive damages introduce significant monetary risk for wrongdoers, but could also invite strategic litigation or disputes over consent language and depiction scope.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.